The Military-Industrial Complex -- does it reflect the will of the people?

Over in the 2012 Elections thread (click through to read relevant replies), the topic of militarism arose. m0nckeywrench made the following claim a couple of times:

m0nckywrench wrote:

That is why there will always be employment in the Military-Industrial Complex. Most of you want that, expressed by your votes.

I take exception to that. Here's the first usage of the term (though the basic idea predates Eisenhower): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_i ... f_the_term (You can hear the address by following the link. And if anyone wants to school me on how to make the embedding work properly, feel free.)

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

My contention: The very clause in which "MIC" was coined refers to unwarranted influence by same. Modern usage is nearly always pejorative; by metonymy "MIC" evokes its acquisition of influence to the detriment of security, liberty, and our democratic processes. Please note the "democratic processes" bit, which is exactly what I'm on about. There is no viable candidate for President and precious few for any national office who seriously questions American militarism. Whoever wins is going to keep the MIC gravy train rolling. m0nckywrench interprets this to mean that by voting for a viable candidate, people endorse the status quo. That's absurd. The "unwarranted influence" ensures that the people cannot elect a leader who will serve their interests above the oligarchs'. The game is rigged because war is immensely profitable, wealthy people/corporations make huge contributions to politicians, and the whole thing keeps turning.

Do you agree with my take (tip of the iceberg, I assure you) on the meaning and usage of MIC? Is that meaning and usage an accurate representation of our current situation? Do you feel that your wishes are reflected in our government's actions, specifically with regard to defense spending and war? Do you feel that the current state of affairs is beneficial to your liberty and security? How do your views compare with the average person's, do you think? Etc., etc.

The American people certainly do decry "the military industrial complex." But they do it the same way they decry high taxes and deficits while simultaneously clamoring for more government services. They are like children that cannot make basic connections.

I don't see any evidence that the American people seriously question American militarism. They question specific wars (especially if the wars were initiated by the opposing party) but they do not oppose the first principle that is "this big military keeps everyone safe and radically cutting it would make everyone less safe."

Though we can identify groups that disagree (the Quakers, the hippies, etc.), these groups seem to have it in their heads that it's okay not to vote. Ironically, the only group I can think of that is in favor of radically cutting the military budget but also believes in voting, are the followers of Ron Paul. A self-defeating group if there ever was one.

In my experience, the average American still thinks "war is good for the economy," even though that platitude was born out of a situation that is entirely dissimilar to the ones we cultivate today. In my experience, the average American does not understand MAD, and carries with them half-baked notions about enemy nations invading us with conventional armies if we don't have conventional armies to fight them off. And in my experience, Americans don't want to be called the world police, but they do still want that position, just with different branding.

Most times I hear or read "MIC", it is being used pejoratively to reflect the wish that the enormous resources spent on it/in it should be reduced. That it is a now self-perpetuating industry that produces little of practical value, while employing thousands and thousands who can't be let go anymore because of the economic consequences. And political consequences for the Reps and Sens who have those manufacturers and employees as constituents.

Quote:

Do you feel that the current state of affairs is beneficial to your liberty and security?

Hardly. It's many times over any kind of deterrent that it has to be to be effective.

The point is that killing someone because you believe that person needs or deserves to die is one thing. At least the victim is part of the equation. Killing people to earn a buck is frankly horrifying.

Exactly and precisely why? That would make Pol Pot, Hitler's Einsatzgruppen, or the Imperial Japanese Army

“…Nanking should be remembered not only for the number of people slaughtered but for the cruel manner in which many met their deaths. Chinese men were used for bayonet practice and in decapitation contests. An estimated 20,000 – 80,000 Chinese women were raped. Many soldiers went beyond rape to disembowel women, slice off their breasts, and nail them alive to walls. Fathers were forced to rape their daughters, and sons their mothers, as other family members watched. Not only did live burials, castration, the carving of organs, and the roasting of people become routine, but more diabolical tortures were practiced, such as hanging people by their tongues on iron hooks or burying people to their waists and watching them get torn apart by German shepherds. So sickening was the spectacle that even Nazis in the city were horrified, one proclaiming the massacre to be the work of bestial machinery.”(The Rape of Nanking, p.6)

better than any mercenary. That makes the worst sadist better than a mere hit man. Any ideological anointment will do? Lovely.

How sure are you that view isn't merely a byproduct of deliberate social conditioning by those supporting their wars of choice as being righteous?

I'm certainly on record as believing Communists and Muslims deserve to die, as the first can not tolerate private property (the right to which I demand) and the second require theocracy. They aren't victims, they are declared enemies. I just don't care overmuch about the rest some of who were "mixed" problems. For example, Communism had to be fought everywhere practical, and if that means one less "Salvador Allende" or supporting a Pinochet or a Pahlevi then so be it. I object to waste. Blood for oil? Fine, but where's the fucking oil? "Mission Civilisatrice" in A-stan? YGTBSM!

------------

Ike thought the MIC itself was the problem rather than an integral part of the US which reflects American messianism coupled with our industrial capabilities (vital to waging modern war). Perhaps we should refer to it as the Military Industrial Religious Complex, but MIRC is already taken. Industry didn't inflict it on America. Americans want it.

Santorum is clearly in line with mainstream US Christian thought in his perceived obligation to the Chosen People/Tel Aviv. The MIC didn't make him as he is, but it would do his bidding if he were elected. Resignation under protest is almost unknown in the US military. A career is often satisfying and the bennies are (finally even for enlisted) quite decent. The custom is to be past retirement age and then vent, after which you put in your papers.

I'm certainly on record as believing Communists and Muslims deserve to die, as the first can not tolerate private property (the right to which I demand) and the second require theocracy. They aren't victims, they are declared enemies. I just don't care overmuch about the rest some of who were "mixed" problems. For example, Communism had to be fought everywhere practical, and if that means one less "Salvador Allende" or supporting a Pinochet or a Pahlevi then so be it. I object to waste. Blood for oil? Fine, but where's the fucking oil? "Mission Civilisatrice" in A-stan? YGTBSM!

The thread question isn't 'is the military a good career choice for brainwashed sociopaths?', it's questioning whether the military industrial complex reflects the will of the people.

So first it probably needs to be clarified that 'Military Industrial Complex' isn't just the stated goals and objectives of the American military but the whole network of Congress, the Pentagon, defense contractors, lobbyists, the president and is largely about contracts and money flows. On the broadest level, it's a question about whether powerful monied interests should be able to exert significant influence on the government. To that extent, the MiC is virtually antithetical to 'the will of the people'. It exists solely to diminish the influence of the people in decision making and stack the deck in favor of an inner circle of powerful and wealthy entities. It's basically crony capitalism with a sprinkling of ideology.

The point is that killing someone because you believe that person needs or deserves to die is one thing. At least the victim is part of the equation. Killing people to earn a buck is frankly horrifying.

Exactly and precisely why? That would make Pol Pot, Hitler's Einsatzgruppen, or the Imperial Japanese Army [Rape of Nanking quotation] better than any mercenary. That makes the worst sadist better than a mere hit man. Any ideological anointment will do? Lovely.

I didn't say that, but in retrospect I can't blame you for the confusion. Note that I used the word "amoral" early on. I should have stressed it more. We agree that killings exist on a moral/immoral continuum (or maybe you think it's binary -- in any case we can say that they are not all equally ethical). The relationship of killer to killee exists within a moral framework. One human being considers whether or not he should kill another human being. Contrast this with one who kills only because it's pragmatic or because there's a paycheck in it. Ethics don't even enter into it. The target is not even dehumanized because he's never afforded status as a human being at all. He is a means to an end, nothing more. I meant that such amorality is horrifying in itself, before we even come to the question of whether the actual act is moral or immoral.

Now it seems clear that you do have considerations beyond paying your bills, although I'm not sure what to make of "don't care overmuch about the rest some of who were 'mixed' problems." Newly ironic: you're okay with killing Communists because they want to deprive you of the right to private property, but you're also okay with killing people (who are no danger to your PP rights) to deprive them of their property (oil)? How can those be reconciled?

Quote:

How sure are you that view isn't merely a byproduct of deliberate social conditioning by those supporting their wars of choice as being righteous?

Not sure how to parse the question. Is this some sort of reverse psychology thing? Like, I see deliberate social conditioning in favor of wars of choice, so I take the opposite position just to be contrary?

But since you're on record as being at least indifferent to MIC (and willing to profit by it), I put the same question to you. Your statements regarding Communism and theocracy are certainly orthodox enough, wouldn't you say?

Ike thought the MIC itself was the problem rather than an integral part of the US which reflects American messianism coupled with our industrial capabilities (vital to waging modern war). Perhaps we should refer to it as the Military Industrial Religious Complex, but MIRC is already taken. Industry didn't inflict it on America. Americans want it.

Did you ever join Columbia House or a similar CD-of-the-month club? I did. Like many before me, I got my dozen initial CDs super cheap and bought full-price discs for 12 subsequent months. Then you try to cancel, and you can't, and they keep sending CDs you didn't order and don't want. In the end they send a huge bill off to a collection agency and what was supposed to be a calculated play to get 24 CDs at relatively low expense ends up costing way more, saddling you with crap you didn't order, and fucking up your credit rating to boot. Yeah, I voluntarily signed up for what I wanted; the rest was absolutely inflicted on me.

Strained analogy time! Now let's say I never explicitly asked for some item, but their cost was ineluctably included in some other necessary service. Let's say it is my electricity bill, and they also provide batteries, because I need a few batteries per month, also. At first I get as many batteries as I need and everything is great, but then they start sending (and charging [heh] for) tons of batteries I don't need, more each month, see.

And this state of affairs is de rigueur, and most people don't question whether all these batteries are needed or even useful. Other people totes love all the batteries and they are really proud of how many batteries we all have, collectively. For example, if we needed to run a bunch of leaf blowers in three different places really far away from us at the same time, we totally could do that, which is awesome.

Oh, and the electric company is strangling kittens on our behalf to get the batteries. Did I not mention that? We had a few feral cats before, but now a good deal more cats fucking hate us and will periodically try to kill us. And so there is a War on Catism which pretty much means strangling more kittens, but also grabbing suspected cat sympathizers and tazering them indefinitely. Also, cats who don't hate us and have been living peacefully with us for years and years are as likely to be kicked as petted if they're out in public. Kitten-strangling is a highly respected profession, and everyone waxes appreciatively of their sacrifice and dedication to battery production (not that a few batteries are bad, mind you) and how the electric company would definitely collapse without them and we'd all have to live in the dark.

But also the people must be kept safe from cat attacks! The battery makers suggest that the electric company create a new division to watch us, for which they are probably going to need some devices that require -- what a coincidence! -- batteries. Anyway so those guys are all up in my business snooping to keep me "safe" and to make sure I'm not aiding and abetting attack cats, to the point where I'm way the fuck more afraid of them than I am of the cats, who aren't very good at killing people anyway, and would best be controlled by simple cat-catchers, or, you know, not strangling their kittens would probably help.

And most of what I pay is now going to battery manufacturers and not to the electric company at all -- which is the useful service I pretty much have to have to live normally. So much of the electric company's revenue now goes to batteries that service is getting awfully spotty: dirty power, brownouts, some blackouts. It's getting so my day-to-day power needs aren't being met (since I can't power my washing machine or refrigerator with the batteries. But nevertheless there are battery factories everywhere instead of newer and better power plants or at least well-maintained old ones. But if I point this out, I'm un-American and why do I hate electricity so much?

EDIT: So, inflicted? I would say yes. I keep paying my power bill not because I like the battery-electricity complex, but because I like light and clean clothes and unspoiled milk and so on. I own a few shares of electric company stock, but there never seems to be a company official who wants to reform things. I do make my voice heard when there is an opening on the board of directors just to make sure the guy I hate least has a shot at it, but really all the stock is owned by battery makers, so the opinions of little people like me don't hold much sway. Thus, this situation is inflicted on us even though most of my neighbors don't seem to give a shit.

Does it reflect the "will" of the people? No. It reflects the fear of the people.

SFAICT, the American people have no "will" worthy of the name. Most of them can't even bag their own groceries.

I'll agree with the first part.... the second not so much.

That fear is deliberately cultivated by a plethora of players for both political & economic gain.

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in modern Conservative thought is the dichotomy between Small Government & Big Military, as if the military somehow weren't govt at all... Combined with the sentiment that we're not the world's policeman, but they'll rabidly support any Repub president who acts like we are...

I think that if we cut military spending by half that we'd be just as safe as we are today, and that we'd avoid the pitfalls of pride inherent in enormous military strength. Having an enormous military opens the door for a bunch of damned fools to attempt to use it for something other than deterrence & defense, but rather as an attempt to establish world hegemony at gunpoint.

Not that modern Dems are a helluva lot better- I think it'll take a long while before they get over the shellacking they took in 2002 & 2004 over soft on terrar, with us or against us, support the troops, so forth & so on... not to mention that they see the defense industry as a source of jobs.

Which isn't to say that we couldn't spend the money on jobs that added to the wealth of the nation rather than just blowing up brown people & constantly replacing the means of doing so...

Interesting that the OP didn't mention that it is claimed it was initially termed the military-industrial-congressional complex. Voters elect these congressmen that fight for various pet projects (or against projects, see McCain). Defense contractors have it figured out, spread production of weapon systems over as many states as possible to get the broadest support possible. Congress is the most powerful part of this triangle. Congress is only accountable to the voters.

Interesting that the OP didn't mention that it is claimed it was initially termed the military-industrial-congressional complex.

That may or not actually be true. It doesn't much matter whether it is, though. Certainly Congress is part of the problem, especially since they have the power to fund boondoggles the military doesn't actually want.

No, of course not. It never has been. The MIC was spawned from black ops projects such as Manhattan and the U-2 spy plane. From day one it did not have a democratic mandate. There is an almost complete firewall between MIC and democracy, aside from a handful of toothless Congress inquiries.

There is an almost complete firewall between MIC and democracy, aside from a handful of toothless Congress inquiries.

I find the idea that it's completely outside the will of the people to be ludicrous. At some level, the American public can put together that a $650 b. military budget equates to a MIC and cutting that budget will reduce it's influence. Which party can I vote for that'll responsibly cut the defense budget? The fact that I have no options here because both parties are terrified of "not supporting the troops" speaks volumes about the "will" of the people.

But instead of paying alot of people to make tanks and bombs and stuff like that, pay alot of people to develop nuclear power or space rockets or other cool techy stuff. Then give it to industry to build/sell it.

When I think about what we spent in wars recently, I can't help buy to think "You know...we could have probably radically improved some fundamental part of our society with that money." and it makes me sad.

It's a complex issue, but part of the problem is economic. It's easy to talk about evil corporations or corrupt politicians, but that ignores the fact that a lot of our defense spending is a direct result of politicians attempting to bring jobs into their district. The public has an unrealistic view of just how much power politicians have in the creation and destruction of jobs, and directing public money is one of the few ways that they do. So the voting public is responsible in a very direct way.

When there are weapons systems that are thought to be unnecessary or overly expensive, it's always the politicians whose constituents are employed by those defense contractors who stand in the way. And of course a lot of that unnecessary expense is often as a result of distributing production for a major project across the country, so that many elected officials can benefit, even if it might make more logistical sense to have operations clustered in a smaller geographical area.

It's not just a problem with the United States either. I recall watching a documentary about Airbus operations in Europe. In order to placate various EU member nations manufacturing was a convoluted process of having one component manufactured in one country, being shipped to another for the next step, being shipped to another for the next step, and so forth just so that everyone could get a piece of the economic pie.

Right now there is a big controversy here in Pittsburgh over the military's attempt to close the 911th Airlift Wing based in the area. The military has a Base Realignment and Closure process whereby military needs are considered, but every time they try and shut down a base politicians step in to protect the bases in their area.

The thread question isn't 'is the military a good career choice for brainwashed sociopaths?', it's questioning whether the military industrial complex reflects the will of the people.

Another question to ask. Would America have the standard of living, freedom, and purchasing power of their currency, without the MIC? Seems to me that the MIC is more desirable than having to take orders from Russian and China.

After this week, I feel the future of the US lies in the stars above, asteroid mining! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

But instead of paying alot of people to make tanks and bombs and stuff like that, pay alot of people to develop nuclear power or space rockets or other cool techy stuff. Then give it to industry to build/sell it.

When I think about what we spent in wars recently, I can't help buy to think "You know...we could have probably radically improved some fundamental part of our society with that money." and it makes me sad.

But instead of paying alot of people to make tanks and bombs and stuff like that, pay alot of people to develop nuclear power or space rockets or other cool techy stuff. Then give it to industry to build/sell it.

When I think about what we spent in wars recently, I can't help buy to think "You know...we could have probably radically improved some fundamental part of our society with that money." and it makes me sad.

So basically 'move MIC money over to NASA'. I'd get behind that.

I'd love to give NASA a bit more generous of a budget.

However as far as big societal challenges go I'm thinking energy, healthcare*, and transportation are our greatest challenges that could benefit from more R&D dollars.

* I don't think the provision of healthcare needs more money, it already consumes an absurd and unsustainable proportion or our GDP. It's even worse than the MIC, as far as being a national money sink goes. Rather I think we could benefit from greater research (both in technology and policy) into finding ways to deliver healthcare more efficiently.

Yeah...people like NASA but it's hardly the only place the government funds research. The NIH spends way more and (in my completely biased opinion) it's work is a lot more vital, at least in the short term (like...the next hundred years or so). The real answer to growing healthcare spending is almost certainly going to come from biomedical research.

There's also the NSF, the DoE, various research programs in the DoD and elsewhere, etc.

The MIC would be a behemoth even with aggressive trimming. Electioneering means anyone trying to cut it will be vilified.

Quote:

Right now there is a big controversy here in Pittsburgh over the military's attempt to close the 911th Airlift Wing based in the area. The military has a Base Realignment and Closure process whereby military needs are considered, but every time they try and shut down a base politicians step in to protect the bases in their area.

I've worked on BRAC preparation teams (where bases measure such things as maintenance hangar area, it gets pretty involved), and I'll say "competition improves the breed" as communities try to reinforce their bases.

A tiny tanker outfit with old C-130s is obviously axe-worthy. The 130 is a great aircraft but the economics of aircraft maintenance favor squadron-sized units. Small units like that one are a hangover from the requirement for Cold War dispersal (note unit age). Old C-130s look like new ones from a distance, but aircraft age in ways only maintainers, inspectors and the maintenance documentation folks see. There is a good use for such airframes. Send them to AMARC for parting out or sale for conversion into water bombers, or for foreign military sales where they won't see nearly as many flight hours.

I bet that base is a great place to work, but that's not a reason to retain it.

But instead of paying alot of people to make tanks and bombs and stuff like that, pay alot of people to develop nuclear power or space rockets or other cool techy stuff. Then give it to industry to build/sell it.

When I think about what we spent in wars recently, I can't help buy to think "You know...we could have probably radically improved some fundamental part of our society with that money." and it makes me sad.

So basically 'move MIC money over to NASA'. I'd get behind that.

I would SO TOTALLY be behind this.

But it'll never happen.

It seems like the only thing that really motivates people is fear. The mission to the moon was ultimately driven by the cold war. The interstate highway system was sold on the premise that it would help ferry troops around in the event of a soviet land invasion.

The stimulus budget showed IMO that when you sell things on purely economic stimulative grounds, it gets torn apart. You have to sell government spending on more base instincts, fear being among them.

He makes a very silly point. Nobody actually chooses what they want to be when they're 8. As many kids want to grow up to be cowboys or elephants as want to be astronauts. It's not an important point.

Tyson is a huge NASA booster, because that's his thing. But his arguments are pure appeals to emotion with little real justification.

I disagree. The space program has had tremendous benefits for our society in terms of science and technology. The problem is that these inventions are so ubiquitous today that we take most of them for granted without realizing where they came from.

Tyson's main point is not that 8 year olds decide what they want to be then and there, but that the exploration of a frontier and solving the challenges it throws at us are what advance us as a society. NASA is the perfect platform for this.

The game is rigged because war is immensely profitable, wealthy people/corporations make huge contributions to politicians, and the whole thing keeps turning.

It goes much deeper than that, though. It's not simply the corporations that are making an immense profit through government purchases and contracts -- although that's certainly a part of it. There are a lot more industries and individuals that rely on military spending than just the "military industrial complex."

The reality is that, quite simply, military spending is a huge amount of our economy. Depending on how you crunch the numbers, it comes out to anywhere between 5-10% of our economy. It's not spread around equally, though, so there are segments (many of them highly populated) which are economically dependent on military spending. Take where I live, for example. The Norfolk area has over a dozen different military installations representing every branch of the US military. There are, literally, hundreds of thousands of people in my metropolitan area employed by the military. Some of them directly (military members and civilian government employees) and many of them indirectly (contractors). This entire region would wither and die without military spending.

Where does that leave us? Well, people that you would never think of as being reliant on government spending -- people like restaurant workers, cosmetologists, doctors, dentists, auto body repair shops, etc. -- suddenly are. Not just in my community, but in communities just like it all around the country.

Keeping military spending up has become far more about just lining the pockets of government contractors, as Eisenhower warned us about. It's about maintaining the jobs economic activity that many regions of the country have become reliant on and our politicians know it. Virginia is now a swing state and, with the Norfolk area being one of the swingiest parts of this swing state, our politicians fight tooth and nail for every military dollar they can. In fact, it's almost hilarious to watch our two local congressmen -- Democrat Bobby Scott and Republican Scott Rigell -- walking hand in hand like bipartisan bosom buddies when it comes to keeping as much taxpayer dollars flowing into the community as they can. And why? Because decisions to cut or even redirect military spending -- like the recent decision to close Norfolk-based JFCOM or the current fight over whether or not to move an aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Mayport, FL -- have ramifications far beyond the DoD's balance sheet. It affects the jobs, families, property values, lives, and communities of far more people than just those who are cashing Uncle Sam's checks.

I'm not trying to defend this reality or justify it in any way, just trying to add some perspective into the conversation that a lot of people may miss.

Which is why we shouldn't get rid of the massive jobs program that is the military. We should simply put this jobs program to work doing something more useful. Instead of developing a technology for a bomb that can be spun off into better pizza bagels, lets just develop better pizza bagels directly. Instead of paying for a soldier to mow the lawn of a military base in China, have him mow my damn lawn. These are intentionally stupid applications of a jobs program, but I chose them to underscore the fact that it's still less stupid than what we have them doing today.

The game is rigged because war is immensely profitable, wealthy people/corporations make huge contributions to politicians, and the whole thing keeps turning.

It goes much deeper than that, though. It's not simply the corporations that are making an immense profit through government purchases and contracts -- although that's certainly a part of it. There are a lot more industries and individuals that rely on military spending than just the "military industrial complex."

The reality is that, quite simply, military spending is a huge amount of our economy. Depending on how you crunch the numbers, it comes out to anywhere between 5-10% of our economy. It's not spread around equally, though, so there are segments (many of them highly populated) which are economically dependent on military spending. Take where I live, for example. The Norfolk area has over a dozen different military installations representing every branch of the US military. There are, literally, hundreds of thousands of people in my metropolitan area employed by the military. Some of them directly (military members and civilian government employees) and many of them indirectly (contractors). This entire region would wither and die without military spending.

Where does that leave us? Well, people that you would never think of as being reliant on government spending -- people like restaurant workers, cosmetologists, doctors, dentists, auto body repair shops, etc. -- suddenly are. Not just in my community, but in communities just like it all around the country.

Keeping military spending up has become far more about just lining the pockets of government contractors, as Eisenhower warned us about. It's about maintaining the jobs economic activity that many regions of the country have become reliant on and our politicians know it. Virginia is now a swing state and, with the Norfolk area being one of the swingiest parts of this swing state, our politicians fight tooth and nail for every military dollar they can. In fact, it's almost hilarious to watch our two local congressmen -- Democrat Bobby Scott and Republican Scott Rigell -- walking hand in hand like bipartisan bosom buddies when it comes to keeping as much taxpayer dollars flowing into the community as they can. And why? Because decisions to cut or even redirect military spending -- like the recent decision to close Norfolk-based JFCOM or the current fight over whether or not to move an aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Mayport, FL -- have ramifications far beyond the DoD's balance sheet. It affects the jobs, families, property values, lives, and communities of far more people than just those who are cashing Uncle Sam's checks.

I'm not trying to defend this reality or justify it in any way, just trying to add some perspective into the conversation that a lot of people may miss.

This is all true. The problem is, as a major public industrial economic ecosystem, it's sub-optimal for the taxpayer and citizen because of the lack of transparency. How much does that cost? I'm sorry, that's classified information. What are they for? I can't comment on that due to matters of national security.

The opacity makes it ripe for misuse, fraud, kickbacks, powerplays, cronyism, etc. And it makes it impossible to accuracy measure it's value. Military spending has intangible value around things like 'global intimidation' but you might get that for a third of the price and never know.

I disagree. The space program has had tremendous benefits for our society in terms of science and technology. The problem is that these inventions are so ubiquitous today that we take most of them for granted without realizing where they came from.

The same can just as easily be said about any research program--NASA isn't special in that respect. ARPANET wasn't built for the space program, for instance.

Quote:

Tyson's main point is not that 8 year olds decide what they want to be then and there, but that the exploration of a frontier and solving the challenges it throws at us are what advance us as a society. NASA is the perfect platform for this.

My point is that NASA is one of many broadly-equivalent platforms, and really it's one of the most long-range in terms of its goals. There are lots of frontiers that we need to explore, with lots of tough problems, and some of those other frontiers are more likely to advance our society in the near term than space exploration. The space program is a fine thing to fund, but it's certainly not "the perfect platform".

The problem is, as a major public industrial economic ecosystem, it's sub-optimal for the taxpayer and citizen because of the lack of transparency. How much does that cost? I'm sorry, that's classified information. What are they for? I can't comment on that due to matters of national security.

Meh, the vast majority of military spending isn't on black programs. The CIA and NSA on the other hand...

I disagree. The space program has had tremendous benefits for our society in terms of science and technology. The problem is that these inventions are so ubiquitous today that we take most of them for granted without realizing where they came from.

The space program of the sixties had those tremendous benefits. One of which was to spawn the development of tech and science R&D generally, particularly in those societies advanced enough to support them. NASA and the ESA now actually purchase a lot of their components from civvies who do their own design and production. The space program isn't the monolithic innovator/designer/producer that it was 50 years ago.

The problem is, as a major public industrial economic ecosystem, it's sub-optimal for the taxpayer and citizen because of the lack of transparency. How much does that cost? I'm sorry, that's classified information. What are they for? I can't comment on that due to matters of national security.

Meh, the vast majority of military spending isn't on black programs. The CIA and NSA on the other hand...

Well, we're talking about the 'military industrial complex' here so it includes the whole enchilada of agencies related to defense, many of the same big players at the table, and all the same 'crony capitalism' dynamics.

The Washington Post did a suprisingly thorough piece on 'Top Secret America'. Here are there topline findings and a link to the whole piece:

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

The investigation's other findings include:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

The 'Explore Connections' section of the piece is particularly relevant to this military industrial complex discussion as it illuminates a vast and sprawling network of government and contractors.

Well, we're talking about the 'military industrial complex' here so it includes the whole enchilada of agencies related to defense, many of the same big players at the table, and all the same 'crony capitalism' dynamics.

Don't conflate "black" budgets with classified activities as a whole. "Black" budgets specifically refer to programs whose details are withheld from public scrutiny. The "black" portion of the Pentagon's budget is only about 5% as of 2012, with a roughly equal amount of "black" activities that are found outside the Pentagon's budget. (source)

The space program of the sixties had those tremendous benefits. One of which was to spawn the development of tech and science R&D generally, particularly in those societies advanced enough to support them. NASA and the ESA now actually purchase a lot of their components from civvies who do their own design and production. The space program isn't the monolithic innovator/designer/producer that it was 50 years ago.

Choose something that is as risky as space travel was back in the 60's and start doing that work. Fusion reactors or really high-end material research or optical computing or something like that. Something that no sane commercial enterprise would try to do.

That's the kind of stuff government is good for. Going in with money when no one else will.